ASIO is not final tier of justice on refugees

Which country might be detaining more than 50 people without charge, without trial and without telling them of what crimes they are accused? Which country might be holding these people indefinitely; that is, with no hint as to when - if ever - they will be released? A few regimes in the Middle East may come to mind. China, perhaps?

Think again. The answer is Australia.

Australia continues to incarcerate more than 50 people who were all deemed, by its immigration authorities, to be genuine refugees. All are owed Australia's protection under international law. All are now deprived of their liberty because, following their successful refugee applications, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation made another assessment. It deemed them a national security risk. That determination trumped all others.

Of course, it is ASIO's job to make these assessments. Its mission statement: ''To identify and investigate threats to security and provide advice to protect Australia, its people and its interests.''

We should expect nothing less than fearless advice from our national intelligence agency.

Put aside, for the moment, that the quality of that advice has been called into question in at least some of these cases. That will happen.

Advertisement

The problem is that ASIO has been entrusted to do much more than offer advice. In the case of these refugees, it is, in effect, vested with the powers of judge, jury and jailer.

Neither the public nor those held in detention are allowed to know precisely why they might be a threat if allowed to live in the community. ASIO keeps the details to itself - for operational and security reasons. The refugees and their lawyers are allowed to see only a brief, unclassified summary of the case against them, but none of the specific allegations.

Despite official determinations that they fled persecution, the refugees remain stateless. They are ''unlawful non-citizens'' in limbo. Some have languished this way - in a ''cruel and inhumane Kafkaesque twilight world'', as lawyer David Manne calls it - for more than three years.

The odd politician - on both sides of the fence - has raised the alarm but successive attorneys-general have been reluctant to put any firm check on ASIO's powers.

The retired Federal Court judge Margaret Stone has been appointed to review all 55 cases. So far two have had their adverse security assessments lifted while three have been reaffirmed. But Stone has stressed that she has no power to tell ASIO what to do.

It is instructive to consider the cases of Sri Lankans accused of supporting the Tamil Tiger guerillas. That country's civil war, with atrocities on both sides, ended in 2009. ASIO's job, as Stone has pointed out, is to assess the threat to Australia's national security now and into the future.

The refugees held in detention include the farmer who says he was pressured to help both sides as he herded cattle between rebel- and government-controlled areas. On ASIO's assessment, he is ''likely to engage in acts prejudicial to Australia's security if he is granted a permanent protection visa''.

Our senior correspondent Mark Baker noted this week: there is no Australian law against supporting the Tigers who, in any case, no longer exist as a mainstream military movement; it is not illegal to ''ideologically support'' causes, as ASIO accuses this farmer; if he is a terrorist plotting a dangerous assault, ASIO makes no such assertion in its one-page ''summary of reasons''; and no Sri Lankan Tamil living in Australia has ever been linked to acts of political violence on Australian soil.

A Sri Lankan mother-of-three, Ranjini, will lead a High Court challenge to the government's power to detain refugees indefinitely. The courts, not the government, have that exclusive power, her lawyers will argue.

ASIO, meanwhile, has changed its mind about another Sri Lankan woman, Manokalo, whom it deemed a security threat. It is the first time it has rescinded an adverse security assessment of an asylum seeker but not before Manokalo and her six-year-old son Ragavan spent 18 months in detention.

So ASIO got it wrong that time. That does not mean its assessment is wrong in all these cases. If any of them pose a genuine threat to the nation, Australians will expect to be protected. But ASIO cannot be the effective final tier of justice. The national intelligence agency is here to safeguard our freedoms, not dispense with them.

Rookie batsman knocks 'em for six - and brings back the joy

It's been a while since the Poms have been moved to write headlines giving Australia grudging respect for its sporting achievements. So it was a pleasure to read The Sun's screamer: ''Agar the horrible''. And the The Independent's front-page pointer: ''Ashton Who? 19-year-old saves Australia''.

In case you've been living in a vacuum, or lost in the box set of Game of Thrones, Ashton Agar is the Aussie kid playing his Test debut at Trent Bridge. He was selected on Monday, out of the blue, because he can bowl. He's what they call a slow left-arm orthodox spinner. It turns out he can bat a bit too.

Agar's knock of 98 was the highest score by a No. 11 batsman in the history of Test cricket. He managed that from just 101 balls, and with a permanent smile on his face. He might have been in the backyard at mum's, he was so relaxed and fluid at the crease.

And yet he saved us from disaster. Australia had lost five batsmen for nine runs in 27 minutes in the morning's play. Our last men standing, Agar and Phil Hughes, delivered a first-innings lead to Australia.

Ian Botham reckoned it was ''the first time I've ever hoped an Aussie would score more runs … whisper it quietly, I would have been perfectly happy to see him get those last two runs''.

It reminded us of more innocent days. Pure cricket. Sport for sport's sake. Oh the joy!